Document Actions

Note to Nancy Pelosi: Challenge Market Fundamentalism

by Ruth Rosen

Allison Stevens, a contributor to Women’s enews, a news service which too
few good men bother to read, has just reported that the hugely expanded
bipartisan Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues now has the power to put
women’s issues on the national agenda. The caucus, which Stevens says may end
up outnumbering the so-called “Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of 44 fiscally
conservative Democrats, and the New Democrat Coalition, a group of 63
pro-business Democrats,” also has the support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was
a member of the caucus, which was founded in 1977.

Among the issues on their “wish list” according to Women’s Enews, are
women’s health, educational equity and sex trafficking, women in prison, and
international domestic violence.

All are important but will go nowhere if they don’t challenge Market
Fundamentalism, the exaggerated belief and faith in the ability of markets to
solve problems that have dominated our national political debate for a
generation. Without directly challenging Market Fundamentalism, they will
ultimately fail to improve the lives of ordinary American women and their
families.

Put it this way: What do catastrophic climate change, the widening gulf
between the wealthy and the poor, America's obesity epidemic, and our
society’s lack of care for the young and the elderly have in common? Each has
powerful special interests who insist that we need to let the market work its private
magic and that government action would create more problems than it would
solve. These interest groups also block any effort to enlist the government by
invoking the arguments of Market Fundamentalism: privatize everything, rely on
yourself and expect nothing from your government.

Market fundamentalism has become like the air we breathe; we hardly notice
it. Every time George W. Bush argues for more tax cuts, he relies on the
unquestioned assumption that we all embrace Market Fundamentalism. Through
constant repetition, the American public has been bullied into believing that
private spending is rational and efficient while public spending is always
wasteful and unproductive. (Tell that to people in New Orleans.)

Progressives and liberals have assumed that Americans would eventually turn
against these ideas, much as they become disillusioned with the Iraq War. But
the truth is, neither the women in Congress nor progressives outside of D.C
challenge Market Fundamentalism directly. Two decades of the reign of Market
Fundamentalism have impoverished both the language and aspirations of
progressive Democrats.

So what they generally do is try to work around Market Fundamentalism; they
try to gain support for their cause without directly attacking the 800 pound
gorilla that sits in Congress, in our deteriorating schools, and at the bottom
of the gulf between those who hold stocks and those who wait for their next
minimum-wage paycheck.

Ideas that are not challenged or questioned become even more deeply entrenched.
We have private “security guards” who are doing the work of soldiers in Iraq, but who
are not accountable to the military. When Hurricane Katrina tore through New Orleans, many of us imagined that the Bush
Administration’s callous and incompetent failure to rescue the people of New Orleans and to
provide the leadership to rebuild the city would lead to massive
disillusionment with the Administration’s market-oriented rhetoric.

But has it? I think not. Many people seem to view it as one more example of
the government’s incapacity to solve problems.

This is a huge problem for liberals and progressives. Even if a decent
Democrat wins the White House in 2008, his or her ability to offer compelling
leadership and to propose new progressive solutions will be limited if Market
Fundamentalist ideas remain unquestioned. Ditto for the women in Congress who
think they will push women’s issues on to the national agenda.

So, it’s necessary—no,urgent—that we immediately challenge Market
Fundamentalism every chance we get. I hesitate to suggest conversations around
water coolers because as most of you already know, most water fountains no
longer work; there is great profit in selling water to thirsty people.

But every conversation, wherever it takes place—on blogs or among political
progressives---should be viewed as an opportunity to explain to others why this
exaggerated faith in markets is so dangerous and misplaced.

Take a look at Longview’s
new Market Fundamentalism resource page.
The plan is to steadily add new arguments and new material, but what is
already there provides plenty of fodder for a collective assault on the ideas
that support Market Fundamentalism.

Market Fundamentalism—this is what prevents us from having universal health
care, mass transit, affordable housing, trains that cross the nation,
subsidized care for the young and elderly, and government efforts to reduce
carbon emissions. The list, of course, is endless.

Aside from ending the war in Iraq,
there is nothing more important we can do to improve our domestic future.
Ending the reign of Market Fundamentalism is a precondition for every kind of
progressive cause. If we don’t attack the effort to privatize every public
service that belongs to “the common good,” we will ultimately fail to move this
nation in any progressive direction.

The Longview Institute is a project of the Tides Center, a tax exempt research and educational institution organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code. Our mission is to advance public policies leading to a more just, democratic, environmentally sustainable, and humane society. We do not endorse or oppose any particular candidate or party.